Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-05-08
THE GAZETTE: FORT WORTH. TEXAS SUNDAY, MAY 8.

other may not acquire superior equity
as bona tide purchaser. If the patent
bad been to E. W. Brown as
head of family it would be sufficient to
put purchaser upon inquiry, but it was
granted to E. W. Brown as though DC
were single man If a vendor is re-
quired to inquire into his vendee's history
in order to see if the property is COM
munity, would he not be compelled to in
quire into his business history as to part
ners or other third parties? But furtht
discussion of this question is u1-
necessary as it was decided definitely IL
Hill vs.. Moore, 62 Tex, 6l0, if the pre-
erty is in the name Of the husband, the
purchaser under him for value without
actual notice holds against the wife or
her heirs. The judgment is reversed and
rendered in favor of appellant for the
land and for all costs in this court and
the court below.
Missouri Pacific Railway Company and
international and Great Northern Rail
road Company vs. M. T. Durham, from
La Sale county; opinion oy Willie, G.
J. This was suit brought by appellee
against appellants in q Justice OF the
peace court to recover damages for kill
ing SOW and injuring pigs in the town
of Cotulla. The case was appealed to
the District court and from the decision
of that court appealed to this court. APP
pellsnt proved that the accident occurred
at it's depot grounds in CotulIa. Appellee
proved the killing of his stock and that
the railroad was not fenced. but proved
no negligence relying on the failure to
fence. The court refused to allow
appellant to show that there was law
prohibiting stock from running at large
in Cotulla; this was error because upon
this depended whether the appellant
was liable for gross negligence
or want of ordinary care. At the time this
suit was brought below the case of
International and Great Northern Rail-
road Company VS.. Cooke [64 Tex, 151,
had not been published. This case decided
that the law imposing a liability on rail-
road for injuries to stock, unless this
road is fenced, docs not apply where pub
lie convenience requires that the rOad
should be left unfenced, as in the
case of depot grounds, street cross
ings, etc, but the burden of slow
ing that the railroad is relieved from its
statutory duties is thrown on it; and it
was shown in this case to have been at
the depot where convenience required
that it should be unfenced. The judg-
ment is reserved and the cause remanded.
William Cox VS.. Houston and Texas
Central Railroad Company, from Travis,
opinion by Willie, G. J. This was con-
troversy about track of land in Harde-
man county. Appellant claimed under
survey made November 10, 1874, and ap
pellee under one made September %,
1872. The surveyor of the Jack land
district made both surveys, and
the only question is did he have
the right to make the 1872 survey;
if so, that one was valid,
if rot the 1874 survey was valid. The
court below held that he had the right to
make the 1872 survey. Hardeman county
was attached to Montague county for
judicial and other purposes, but was
part of the Young county land district
which last mentioned county was attached
to Jack county for Judicial purposes.
Under this state of affairs would
the surveyor of Montague or Jack be
the proper officer. If the Young land
district included Hardeman county, then
the Jack land district included Young
county except Hardeman, which had been
attached to Montague by the well known
rules of construction, and we can
uuu uO lay WuICu dGGdCuSS 1bIuS-
man county to Jack for surveying pur-
poses, and we do not think that at the
time the surveyor made appellee's survey
that he had any right,
and he had no colorado right as
de facto surveyor of Hardeman county,
nor could the sanction of the
General Land Office validate his acts, for
the power to validate or ratify implies
the power to authorize. We think the
court below erred, and the judgment is
reversed and rendered for appellant for
a recovery of the land and of the costs of
this and the lower court.
The following was entered of record in
the Supreme court at its sitting of Fri
day, May Z, 1887:
Ordered that subdivision l of rule SO of
this court be so amended as hereafter to
read as follows:
l. Cases which relate to the admins
tration of the government, or of general
public interest, or of appeals, or suits of
review in administration cases, or cases
where injunctiOns have been granted in
the court below and have been perpetu-
ated, or have been dissolved and by ap-
peal have been kept in force.